9
   

are you happy in false realitly?

 
 
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 05:55 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Such thought experiments which evoke Godel's ( not God's* Smile ) incompleteness theorem should reveal the flaws in any absolutist claims about the words "reality" and "existence", yet how many have the ability to muster such thoughts ? If we accept Godel's implication that there can be no ultimate axioms about reality and existence, we are surely left with the pragmatists position that such concepts are merely useful for joint human enterprise, dependent on specific contexts. They may be considered as "the ball" in assorted ball( =language) games, whose form is dependent on the particular game being played.

* Berkeley's requirement that "God is the ultimate observer" is a "completeness theorem" antithetical to Godel's "incompleteness theorem".
This underscores the point that absolutist claims about existence and reality are no different to religious ones.



Godel's incompleteness, and completeness, theorem deals with languages that are capable of basic arithmetic and provability; applying it to anything that involves reality or existence is stupid.

Why? Well, assuming that Spinoza's ethics (I'm just using him as an example. We could use any philosopher) is formally valid, Spinoza would not have to worry about the incompleteness theorem, because his work could be couched in first order predicate logic without the addition of arithmetic. And since Spinoza does use the words existence and reality, there's nothing wrong at all with what he does.

:p
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 06:16 am
@Ding an Sich,
Gödel himself was a mystical, religiously-inclined man. So to oppose him to 'God' and religion, using a play of words with his name, is a form of treason.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 07:47 am
@Olivier5,
Treason ! Shocked

Off with my head ! Sad

Yes, it looks like Godel was indeed a believer,(... and Heidegger was a Nazi and Newton was an alchemist... etc) This might call for another thread on the separation of the man from the idea.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 07:58 am
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
Godel's incompleteness, and completeness, theorem deals with languages that are capable of basic arithmetic and provability; applying it to anything that involves reality or existence is stupid


Hardly "stupid" if I am using the idea discursively rather than descriptively. I could equally have used an infinite regress argument to show the inextricability of observer-observed, but the God/Godel device was stylistically more appealing to me in encapsulating the idea that absolutism was essentially religious.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 08:32 am
@Ding an Sich,
Explanatory note on the word "discursive".

Notice I used the expression "evoke Godel..." rather than "employ Godel...."

Example:
The discursive equation
SELF ESTEEM = SUCCESSES/PRETENSIONS (ref George Miller Psychologist)
does not employ mathematics, rather it evokes the mathematical concept of a reciprocal relationship assuming the variables could ever be quantified.

0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 09:59 am
@Olivier5,
Yes, "ultimately" all conceptual constructions are illusory. The important difference is between useful constructions/distinctions and misleading and useless constructions/distinctions.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 10:28 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Yes, "ultimately" all conceptual constructions are illusory. The important difference is between useful constructions/distinctions and misleading and useless constructions/distinctions.


Are you saying that ultimately all conceptual constructions are conceptual constructions?

Why?

In any case, there is no way conceptual constructions are of their very nature "illusory, JL."
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 11:34 am
@JLNobody,
A distinction may be useful to treat a specific problem, and not in other cases. Similarly, lumping two concepts together or tying them through etymology to see how close they are, is often useful.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 11:38 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Yes, it looks like Godel was indeed a believer,(... and Heidegger was a Nazi and Newton was an alchemist... etc) This might call for another thread on the separation of the man from the idea.

I don't think Gödel was at odd with his own ideas, fresco. The guy was a most brilliant logician. He even thought logic could prove the existence of God. How 'absolutist' is that?

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong but in my understanding, Nazism is perfectly compatible with a number of philosophies, including Nietzsche's and Heidegger's, which do not seem too concerned with issues of ethics. So the fact Heidegger took his card at the Nazi party shouldn't surprise anyone.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 12:31 pm
@Olivier5,
I agree. Godel may not have been "at odds with his own ideas". (The committee nature of "self" comes to mind here) I read somewhere that his belief was "intuitive" and emergent from "paradox" rather than subject to logical proof, irrespective of his own ontological attempts at such (finished by others, and published and criticized after his death). Also, I note that Godel used the term "properties" within his proof which indicates that he was assuming a paradigm of "naive realism" at the time as a setting for his usage of the term "existence". The interesting point, (to me at least Smile ) is whether logic per se shoots itself in the foot via the incompleteness theorem since the ontological evocation (see above) of that appears to suggest that set membership properties are arbitrary,
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 02:35 pm
@fresco,
There's nothing wrong with associating properties to objects. Including mental objects.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 03:38 pm
fresco wrote:

Only if you are a naive realist who fails to realize that all "objects" are "mental".



Your scorn for "naive realists" is an absurdity, Fresco.

Your certainty that they are wrong...and that all "objects" are "mental"...is laughable.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 03:40 pm
@Olivier5,
Only if you are a naive realist who fails to realize that all "objects" are "mental".

I wrote this on page 2
Quote:
"Physical reality" tends to imply what appear to be persistent or repetitive states of affairs which involve the five senses directly, or indirectly via transducers (such as radio wave detectors). Pragmatically, we tend to think of such states as observer independent, but the categorization of "statehood" ( such as "the color green", or "the hardness of rock") is obviously dependent on a hypothetical standard observer whether present or not. Such observer dependent states should not be confused with the realists' word "properties" which implies that there exist "objects " possessing them. Those who actually contemplate the issue might conclude, as others already have, that "properties" amount to statements of our expectations about our interactive relationships with aspects of "our world".

It is the abstract persistence of words like "rock", which tends pragmatically to be interpreted as the concrete persistence of "a thing". But in essence, all is in flux including us, and the molecules of "the rock". What actually persists is our confidence in "the rock" as part of a state of affairs in which "a rock" can be potentially utilized (as a hammer, a weight, a missile etc). (Reference: Heidegger Zuhandenheit " Ready to Hand"). Thus "being" always implies the process of dynamic inter-activeness NOT static "is-ness".

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 03:42 pm
@fresco,
Simply put, what I see and perceive is my reality.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 03:44 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Only if you are a naive realist who fails to realize that all "objects" are "mental".

I wrote this on page 2
Quote:
"Physical reality" tends to imply what appear to be persistent or repetitive states of affairs which involve the five senses directly, or indirectly via transducers (such as radio wave detectors). Pragmatically, we tend to think of such states as observer independent, but the categorization of "statehood" ( such as "the color green", or "the hardness of rock") is obviously dependent on a hypothetical standard observer whether present or not. Such observer dependent states should not be confused with the realists' word "properties" which implies that there exist "objects " possessing them. Those who actually contemplate the issue might conclude, as others already have, that "properties" amount to statements of our expectations about our interactive relationships with aspects of "our world".

It is the abstract persistence of words like "rock", which tends pragmatically to be interpreted as the concrete persistence of "a thing". But in essence, all is in flux including us, and the molecules of "the rock". What actually persists is our confidence in "the rock" as part of a state of affairs in which "a rock" can be potentially utilized (as a hammer, a weight, a missile etc). (Reference: Heidegger Zuhandenheit " Ready to Hand"). Thus "being" always implies the process of dynamic inter-activeness NOT static "is-ness".




Your scorn and contempt for naive realists...and for the stance they take...is itself worthy of scorn and contempt, Fresco.

You ought to be ashamed that you are offering your views this way in a forum dedicated to philosophy.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 03:53 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Laughing
That's priceless Frank !
Quote:
You ought to be ashamed that you are offering your views this way in a forum dedicated to philosophy

....said the celebrated textbook exemplar of what Freud called projection of one's own behavior.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 03:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Simply put indeed, with the proviso that "my reality" is always couched in shared language.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 04:20 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Laughing
That's priceless Frank !
Quote:
You ought to be ashamed that you are offering your views this way in a forum dedicated to philosophy

....said the celebrated textbook exemplar of what Freud called projection of one's own behavior.


I doubt it, Fresco...since I am saying that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

You, on the other hand, using your endless progression of appeal to authority, seem to be indicating that you KNOW what the REALITY is.

Interesting that you did not touch on the more interesting sentence in my last post:

Your scorn and contempt for naive realists...and for the stance they take...is itself worthy of scorn and contempt, Fresco.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 04:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
As Dennis Healey (UK politician) once remarked about criticism from one of the opposition ...
Quote:
I feel I've just been savaged by a dead sheep.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2014 04:33 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

As Dennis Healey (UK politician) once remarked about criticism from one of the opposition ...
Quote:
I feel I've just been savaged by a dead sheep.



I suspect you feel a good deal more than that, Fresco.

But keep on guessing...and presenting the guesses as facts, because you can quote from other people who were presenting guesses as facts.

Watching that is as much fun as that supposed joke you just shared.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Reality - thing or phenomenon? - Question by Cyracuz
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
The 10 Most Destructive Americans - Discussion by coldjoint
Deportation Bus - Discussion by gungasnake
The reality of time - Question by dalehileman
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/05/2019 at 08:48:53